Claimant asserts that his right thumb was injured because of negligence of
defendant on March 16, 1998 while he was unloading a delivery truck at

Clinton Correctional Facility (hereinafter Clinton). He further alleges that he
was not provided appropriate medical treatment for his
injury.

Claimant was working at his prison job on March 16 and, as part of his duties,
he assisted in unloading a delivery truck that contained bags claimant estimated
to weigh 130 pounds. While he was moving a bag with the truck driver, the truck
driver suddenly let go of his side of the bag. The entire weight of the bag
shifted to claimant and, as a result, he injured his right thumb.

Claimant was taken to the facility infirmary and an X ray revealed that his
right thumb was dislocated. Dr. Lee ordered the hand wrapped with an ace
bandage, he excused claimant from all activities for 10 days and he prepared a
request for claimant to see an orthopedic surgeon. Claimant returned to the
infirmary on March 27 and an X ray taken at such time revealed the dislocation
was back in place. According to claimant, he pulled on his thumb to put it back
in place.

Correction Officer Bruce St. Pierre was called by claimant as a witness.
Officer St. Pierre was at the work site when claimant was injured. He recalled
that draft bags were being unloaded from the delivery truck and he estimated the
weight of the bags at about 150 pounds each. He related that there was a lift
in the area but that it was inoperable and had been inoperable for a
considerable period of time. Officer St. Pierre said that five or six
individuals were assisting in unloading the truck. He stated that there were
four or five bags and that two people would move each bag. The bags were pulled
to the back of the truck and then lowered from chest height to ground level. He
recalled that claimant and the truck driver were unloading the last bag when the
driver dropped his end of the bag and it fell on claimant. Claimant's thumb was
swollen and thus he was sent to the facility infirmary. Officer St. Pierre
reported that claimant did not complain about the process of moving the bags or
the weight of the bags before the accident. The officer related that the same
method of unloading trucks had been used extensively without prior injury.

Dr. Ira Ellen, the medical director at Clinton was called as a witness. He
reviewed claimant's medical records and testified regarding the treatment
claimant received. The doctor acknowledged on questioning from claimant that
there was no record of any pain medicine being provided to claimant from March
16 to April 16. Dr. Ellen stated that the type of injury sustained by claimant
does not always result in severe pain and that the amount of pain varies with
the individual. He stated that the treatment provided was proper.

Although inmates working in prison jobs do not receive the panoply of
protections afforded by the Labor Law (

D'Argenio v Vil. of Homer, 202 AD2d 883, 884), they are nevertheless
entitled to a work place that is reasonably safe under the prevailing
circumstances (Kandrach v State of New York, 188 AD2d 910,
913).[1] Here, the evidence established that
claimant and another individual were unloading a bag weighing 130 to 150 pounds.
Claimant had engaged in this work previously and never complained about the
work. There is no evidence that he suffered from any disability that prevented
him from moving and lifting the bags. The number of individuals working on
unloading bags and the small number of bags involved ensured that fatigue would
not become a factor. Two individuals worked together to unload each bag. There
were no reported prior injuries while unloading bags from trucks. The court is
not convinced that the work conditions or methods were unreasonable under the
prevailing circumstances.

Claimant's medical malpractice claim must also fail. As the court explained
on the record at trial, the nature of claimant's allegations necessitated expert
evidence to establish a prima facie case (

Although the Labor Law does not apply because claimant is an inmate, the court
notes that there is a divergence of opinions regarding whether Labor Law
§ 240 applies to an injury occurring while unloading objects from
the back of a truck (compare, Curley v Gateway Communications, 250 AD2d
888, 890 [Third Department], with Phelan v State of New York, 238 AD2d
882, 883 [Fourth Department]).